Building network automation solutions

9 module online course

Start now!

A Day in a Life of an Overlaid Virtual Packet

I explain the intricacies of overlay network forwarding in every overlay-network-related webinar (Cloud Computing Networking, VXLAN deep dive, Overlay Virtual Networking, VMware NSX Architecture), but never wrote a blog post about them. Let’s fix that.

First of all, remember that most mainstream overlay network implementations (Cisco Nexus 1000V, VMware vShield, Microsoft Hyper-V) don’t change the intra-hypervisor network behavior: a virtual machine network interface card (VM NIC) is still connected to a layer-2 hypervisor switch. The magic happens between the internal layer-2 switch and the physical (server) NIC.

Nicira’s NVP is a bit different (Open vSwitch can do much more than simple layer-2 forwarding), but as it performs L2-only forwarding within a single logical subnet, we can safely ignore the differences.

Typical overlay virtual networking architecture

The diagrams were taken from the VXLAN course and thus use VXLAN terminology. Hyper-V uses similar concepts and slightly different acronyms and encapsulation format.

The TCP/IP stack in a VM (or any other network-related software working with the VM NIC driver) is totally oblivious to its virtual environment – it looks like the VM NIC is connected to a real Ethernet segment, and so when the VM TCP/IP stack needs to send a packet, it sends a full-fledged L2 frame (including source and destination VM MAC address) to the VM NIC.

A VM sends a layer-2 frame through its VM NIC

The first obvious question you should ask is: how does the VM know the MAC address of the other VM? Since the VM TCP/IP stack thinks the VM NIC connects to an Ethernet segment, it uses ARP to get the MAC address of the other VM.

Second question: how does the ARP request get to the other VM? Please allow me to handwave over this tiny little detail for the moment; BUM (Broadcast, Unknown Unicast, Multicast) flooding is a topic for another blog post.

Now let’s focus on what happens with the layer-2 frame sent through the VM NIC once it hits the hypervisor switch. If the destination MAC address belongs to a VM residing in the same hypervisor, the frame gets delivered to the destination VM (even Hyper-V does layer-2 forwarding within the hypervisor, as does Nicira’s NVP unless you’ve configured private VLANs).

If the destination MAC address doesn’t belong to a local VM, the layer-2 forwarding code sends the layer-2 frame toward the physical NIC ... and the frame gets intercepted on its way toward the real world by an overlay virtual networking module (VXLAN, NVGRE, GRE or STT encapsulation/decapsulation module).

The overlay virtual networking module uses the destination MAC address to find the IP address of the target hypervisor, encapsulates the virtual layer-2 frame into an VXLAN/(NV)GRE/STT envelope and sends the resulting IP packet toward the physical NIC (with the added complexity of vKernel NICs in vSphere environments).

Every single overlay virtual networking solution needs jumbo frames in the transport network to work well - you really wouldn't want to reduce the MTU size on every single VM NIC

Encapsulated virtual packet is sent toward the physical NIC

Glad you asked the third question: how does the overlay networking module know the IP address of the target hypervisor??? That’s the crux of the problem and the main difference between VXLAN and Hyper-V/NVP. It’s clearly a topic for yet another blog post (and here’s what I wrote about this problem a while ago). For the moment, let’s just assume it does know what to do.

The physical network (which has to provide nothing more than simple IP transport) eventually delivers the encapsulated layer-2 frame to the target hypervisor, which uses standard TCP/IP mechanisms (match on IP protocol for GRE, destination UDP port for VXLAN and destination TCP port for STT) to deliver the encapsulated layer-2 frame to the target overlay networking module.

Things are a bit more complex: in most cases you’d want to catch the encapsulated traffic somewhere within the hypervisor kernel to minimize the performance hit (each trip through the userland costs you extra CPU cycles), but you get the idea.

Last step: the target overlay networking module strips the envelope and delivers the raw layer-2 frame to the layer-2 hypervisor switch which then uses the destination MAC address to send the frame to the target VM-NIC.

Summary: all major overlay virtual networking implementations are essentially identical when it comes to frame forwarding mechanisms. The encapsulation wars are thus stupid, with the sole exception of TCP/IP offload, and some vendors have already started talking about multi-encapsulation support.

More information

If you’re interested in overlay virtual networking, check out these webinars:

The VMware NSX Architecture webinar is free (but you have to register soon if you want to attend the live session) and you can buy recordings of all others, or get them all with the yearly subscription.

You can also watch the Cloud Computing Networking presentation I had at EuroNOG and the Cloud Networking Scalability from RIPE64. Links to video recordings are on my Presentations page.

We migrated our blog a few days ago, and the commenting functionality is not there yet. In the meantime enjoy the older comments, or find our content on LinkedIn and comment there.


  1. > most mainstream overlay network implementations (Cisco Nexus 1000V, VMware vShield, Microsoft Hyper-V)

    You meant "vSwitch", not "vShield", right? ;)

    1. I did mean "vShield". ESXi VXLAN kernel module is part of vShield (or vCNS) product and can only be configured through vShield Manager.

    2. Oh, I see what you mean. :) I'd say that NV in vCNS is a part of DVS, but yes, it is configured in vSM, which is a bit confusing. Or more than a bit. :)

  2. Does flooding occur on the entire Ethernet segment? Since each VTEP knows the guest VMs connected mac address, why don't the VTEP's share macs with one another? This way flooding is local to the VTEP.

    1. Flooding is done through IP multicast (VXLAN), through head-end replication (unicast VXLAN, NVP) or through service nodes (NVP). Hyper-V doesn't need flooding because it handles ARP locally.

  3. Ivan, wrt ARP, you state, “If the destination MAC address doesn’t belong to a local VM, the layer-2 forwarding code sends the layer-2 frame toward the physical NIC.” Are you saying this does not happen if the destination MAC belongs to a VM in the same hypervisor? I may be reading into it too much, but I would expect that to happen no matter what (and the local VM just responds normally) or are you just implying it when you state, “If the destination MAC address belongs to a VM residing in the same hypervisor, the frame gets delivered to the destination VM.” The frame gets delivered after the ARP request and response, no? If not, this can raise some interesting questions with shared IPs, etc.

    1. ARP request is sent to a broadcast (or multicast in case of ND) address, so it's flooded by definition.

      ARP reply is sent as unicast and wouldn't leave the hypervisor if the two VMs reside on the same VXLAN segment - same behavior as traditional Ethernet switches.

      Gratuitous ARP reply (used for shared IP takeover) is sent to broadcast address ==> flooded.

  4. Cool - thanks for confirming.

  5. Great to see someone clearly and explicitly stating the Jumbo Frame requirement. Thanks.

    Steven Iveson